←back to thread

273 points geox | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
cpncrunch ◴[] No.40714063[source]
News article says humans, but earliest human (homo sapiens) was around 300kya. The actual paper uses the word hominids rather than humans.
replies(2): >>40714284 #>>40714924 #
sydbarrett74 ◴[] No.40714284[source]
Can we all agree that 'human' should be defined as all members of the genus Homo?
replies(3): >>40714381 #>>40714890 #>>40717778 #
1. bloak ◴[] No.40717778[source]
A single-word common name usually refers to a genus: "oak" is anything in Quercus, "wagtail" is anything in Motacilla and so on. That's not conclusive because there are plenty of exceptions, and "human" could easily qualify as a special case, but I don't see why "human" shouldn't be any member of Homo.